Class 710 LO

SteveOfTheStow · 19 Nov 2018

700007 said:
Exactly that - other trains were considerably more expensive, I am imagining the fact that they were built overseas may have added to the costs (tariffs, transportation etc.)

Other trains largely work though, is my point....

If you buy cheap, you get what you pay for. In this case, a non-working train!

Now, TfL shouldn't have to be in that position. They should be able to select the cheapest bidder freely (as some rules probably dictate). But then the contract should be well written so that recompense is given to TfL should the trains be delivered late. This would likely push the bids up, but would provide some insurance that the trains are delivered on time or money gets paid out to do things like cover money lost in additional fare takings, comms, replacement buses etc.

Of course, I'm a total layman here and things aren't that simple in the industry, I'm sure. However, it does seem a farcical situation that Bombardier can deliver over a year late. If it cost them money in insurance to cover lateness, then they either wouldn't have bid with the Aventra or they'd have invested more resources near the start of the project (where investing resources helps, not hinders as at the end of a project) to ensure timely delivery.

RailUK Forums

03_179 · 19 Nov 2018

Have any more than the ones below been delivered ?
Unit | Date Delivered
710261 | 25/07/2018 |
710262 | 10/07/2018 |
710263 | 16/07/2018 |
710265 | 19/07/2018 |
710266 | 24/07/2018 |
710267 | 27/07/2018 |

If so what dates please ?

superkev · 19 Nov 2018

I wonder who writes the software. In house, in the UK or abroad or a dreaded consultant.
K

AlexNL · 19 Nov 2018

superkev said:
I wonder who writes the software. In house, in the UK or abroad

It's likely that the MITRAC development is done in-house by Bombardier staff, it is a core piece of their rolling stock subdivision. It's important to note that MITRAC is just a part of the overall system, which has to interface with all the components connected to the train. Quite often, those components are provided by 3rd parties.

For example, the AC units on the Class 700 Thameslink trains were built by Liebherr. As the Siemens TCMS needs to know about the status of the AC unit, Siemens and Liebherr engineers have had to work together to make the Siemens TCMS understand what the Liebherr unit is telling it.

This, of course, also applies to Bombardier. Each individual component has to communicate with the TCMS. If there are significant changes in a component, this can have quite an impact on the TCMS as well.

This can sometimes be complicated, as vendors may go out of business shortly after delivering the components. I've heard a story of a certain PIS vendor going out of business shortly after components were delivered to the builder of a new fleet of subway trains. The builder then had great difficulties integrating their kit with the TCMS, as they could no longer contact the vendor for support.

or a dreaded consultant.

I don't see a reason for the use of the word "dreaded".

Not every company is an IT shop, and employing a team of highly skilled software engineers for the odd chance that a project comes along which needs them is just poor value for money. In the cases where their skills are needed, outsourcing the development activity adds value to the business as the company won't have to recruit and train a bunch of engineers - and you can easily let them go once the project has been delivered.

It's easy to say "a consultant won't have the same drive for quality as an in-house software engineer would" and while there is some merit to that, much of it depends on the collaboration between the company and the development team. If the company provides poor guidance, is unclear about what they really want, and is hesitant in accepting (or rejecting) what is delivered, you can expect a poor result. Many outsourcing projects fail because of this - not because they're outsourcing projects.

Disclaimer: I work in IT consultancy myself.

superkev · 19 Nov 2018

AlexNL said:
It's likely that the MITRAC development is done in-house by Bombardier staff, it is a core piece of their rolling stock subdivision. It's important to note that MITRAC is just a part of the overall system, which has to interface with all the components connected to the train. Quite often, those components are provided by 3rd parties.

For example, the AC units on the Class 700 Thameslink trains were built by Liebherr. As the Siemens TCMS needs to know about the status of the AC unit, Siemens and Liebherr engineers have had to work together to make the Siemens TCMS understand what the Liebherr unit is telling it.

This, of course, also applies to Bombardier. Each individual component has to communicate with the TCMS. If there are significant changes in a component, this can have quite an impact on the TCMS as well.

This can sometimes be complicated, as vendors may go out of business shortly after delivering the components. I've heard a story of a certain PIS vendor going out of business shortly after components were delivered to the builder of a new fleet of subway trains. The builder then had great difficulties integrating their kit with the TCMS, as they could no longer contact the vendor for support.

I don't see a reason for the use of the word "dreaded".

Not every company is an IT shop, and employing a team of highly skilled software engineers for the odd chance that a project comes along which needs them is just poor value for money. In the cases where their skills are needed, outsourcing the development activity adds value to the business as the company won't have to recruit and train a bunch of engineers - and you can easily let them go once the project has been delivered.

It's easy to say "a consultant won't have the same drive for quality as an in-house software engineer would" and while there is some merit to that, much of it depends on the collaboration between the company and the development team. If the company provides poor guidance, is unclear about what they really want, and is hesitant in accepting (or rejecting) what is delivered, you can expect a poor result. Many outsourcing projects fail because of this - not because they're outsourcing projects.

Disclaimer: I work in IT consultancy myself.

Sorry but my experience of consultants is not good. Only works if you have an informed customer to guide them.
K

AlexNL · 19 Nov 2018

superkev said:
Sorry but my experience of consultants is not good. Only works if you have an informed customer to guide them.

And how exactly is that to blame on the consultants?

matthewmacleod · 20 Nov 2018

It would be interesting to know exactly what the problems are. “software” is quite nebulous!

plcd1 · 20 Nov 2018

SteveOfTheStow said:
Other trains largely work though, is my point....

If you buy cheap, you get what you pay for. In this case, a non-working train!

Now, TfL shouldn't have to be in that position. They should be able to select the cheapest bidder freely (as some rules probably dictate). But then the contract should be well written so that recompense is given to TfL should the trains be delivered late. This would likely push the bids up, but would provide some insurance that the trains are delivered on time or money gets paid out to do things like cover money lost in additional fare takings, comms, replacement buses etc.

Of course, I'm a total layman here and things aren't that simple in the industry, I'm sure. However, it does seem a farcical situation that Bombardier can deliver over a year late. If it cost them money in insurance to cover lateness, then they either wouldn't have bid with the Aventra or they'd have invested more resources near the start of the project (where investing resources helps, not hinders as at the end of a project) to ensure timely delivery.

Several things to say here. We don't know that TfL "bought cheap". The overall package - trains and maintenance support - may well have been the most economically advantageous (to use the lingo) but it may only have been a few tens of thousands of pounds cheaper than the next bid. We simply don't know as those comparative details are never released. Bombardier are hardly unique in being late with a new train design. Siemens were late with the 700s, Hitachi have been late with the 385s and IEPs etc etc. I doubt the 710s will be the only really late train amongst the batch of suppliers sending trains to the UK. Will CAF's new trains for the North glide seamlessly into service? It'll be a miracle if they do.

I am sure that Bombardier are "on the hook" financially to TfL *but* all contractual "liquidated damages" / penalties etc are capped. No supplier will ever expose themselves to an unlimited potential financial drain. Their lawyers won't let them sign up to such a thing nor would their Board (if it's doing its job properly). It is worth remembering that Bombardier are almost certainly making a loss on the 710s given the long delay and failure to get a working train. Eventually that cost may be defrayed across later orders - assuming they run much more smoothly than the LO order. Bombardier will also be facing a lot of questions from other customers about their delivery schedules, prospective fleet reliability etc. I doubt their reputation is exactly shining brightly given people in the industry will know the 710s are late.

The only way to avoid this sort of situation is to never, ever buy a new product and always wait until someone else has taken the development pain. Even then there are no guarantees that a so called "proven" product will work when delivered to a new customer. It is no different to having work done on your house - you can opt to use an experienced builder with an excellent reputation but they cannot guarantee not to run into unexpected problems in your property. As the client you are unlikely to possess full knowledge of your house - its foundations, brickwork, pipes, wiring etc. Even if you employed expensive surveyors they won't find everything. Any prudent person ensures they have additional funds to cover variations to the agreed written scope and that there is a process in the contract for agreeing variations. I certainly did that when I had work done.

Clearly TfL took a risk in going with a new train design but I assume that the engineering resource that was on the tender evaluation team asked a full set of relevant questions of all bidders and especially challenged how the risks around new build would be controlled / mitigated. I assume Bombardier provided pertinent and evidenced responses. However that still does not mean that problems will not occur. Risk can always materialise. We also do not know if TfL / Arriva Rail London / Network Rail fulfilled all of their contractual obligations *to* Bombardier on time and in full. If they didn't then Bombardier is NOT wholly to blame for what has gone on and therefore any commercial dispute will have to reflect breaches by all parties. That's just how it is I'm afraid. What we also do not know is whether TfL have exercised any wider rights under the contract to find out why things have gone so wrong etc. I have a horrible suspicion that the whole GOBLIN electrification project, including the new trains, would probably be an exemplar of how not to do a project like this but I doubt we will ever see the full details of what actually transpired.

plcd1 · 20 Nov 2018

matthewmacleod said:
It would be interesting to know exactly what the problems are. “software” is quite nebulous!

I've read somewhere that the pantographs have been dropping for no apparent reason. Also that there have been unexpected brake applications during testing. I'm no expert but I assume that the train detected particular "conditions" and the software then instructed the pantograph to drop or the brakes to apply. There could also be issues in the pantographs and braking systems. Whatever the source is then it all has to be worked through to make sure there are not erroneous readings, erroneous instructions and responses or not problematic components. Given the massive complexity it's not an easy process to find the root cause / symptoms and then define a solution then implement it and test it while not inadvertently causing another problem to manifest. That's the sense I'm getting from comments I've read. As ever happy to be corrected if I've just written a load of drivel.

slick · 20 Nov 2018

plcd1 said:
I've read somewhere that the pantographs have been dropping for no apparent reason. Also that there have been unexpected brake applications during testing. I'm no expert but I assume that the train detected particular "conditions" and the software then instructed the pantograph to drop or the brakes to apply. There could also be issues in the pantographs and braking systems. Whatever the source is then it all has to be worked through to make sure there are not erroneous readings, erroneous instructions and responses or not problematic components. Given the massive complexity it's not an easy process to find the root cause / symptoms and then define a solution then implement it and test it while not inadvertently causing another problem to manifest. That's the sense I'm getting from comments I've read. As ever happy to be corrected if I've just written a load of drivel.

Mosy likely true, as you can get a late electrostar 379,381 etc (aventra learning material is the same) to give an emergency brake application and drop the pan simultaneously by operating one of the emergency plungers in the cab, so their is most likely a fault around these system responses.

Julian G · 20 Nov 2018

710265 worked between Gospel Oak-Barking & 710266 worked between Willesden-Milton Keynes overnight.

GreatAuk · 20 Nov 2018

This is all a bit depressing! It feels like pretty much every class of new /recently introduced rolling stock from all manufacturers is having major problems / delays at the moment. What's going on! It does seem like a large proportion of problems are with train software, and I can't help wondering whether complex software systems were chosen on the promise of more functionality and lower overall costs without fully understanding the risks...

AlexNL said:
And how exactly is that to blame on the consultants?

I quite agree - unless a project of any kind is well defined and self contained it's unrealistic to expect a consultant /contractor to deliver a good solution without a knowledgeable customer to guide and inform them, and support the interfaces with other aspects of the project.

absolutelymilk · 20 Nov 2018

Great, hopefully these are driver training runs?

SteveOfTheStow · 20 Nov 2018

plcd1 said:
Several things to say here. We don't know that TfL "bought cheap". The overall package - trains and maintenance support - may well have been the most economically advantageous (to use the lingo) but it may only have been a few tens of thousands of pounds cheaper than the next bid. We simply don't know as those comparative details are never released. Bombardier are hardly unique in being late with a new train design. Siemens were late with the 700s, Hitachi have been late with the 385s and IEPs etc etc. I doubt the 710s will be the only really late train amongst the batch of suppliers sending trains to the UK. Will CAF's new trains for the North glide seamlessly into service? It'll be a miracle if they do.

I am sure that Bombardier are "on the hook" financially to TfL *but* all contractual "liquidated damages" / penalties etc are capped. No supplier will ever expose themselves to an unlimited potential financial drain. Their lawyers won't let them sign up to such a thing nor would their Board (if it's doing its job properly). It is worth remembering that Bombardier are almost certainly making a loss on the 710s given the long delay and failure to get a working train. Eventually that cost may be defrayed across later orders - assuming they run much more smoothly than the LO order. Bombardier will also be facing a lot of questions from other customers about their delivery schedules, prospective fleet reliability etc. I doubt their reputation is exactly shining brightly given people in the industry will know the 710s are late.

The only way to avoid this sort of situation is to never, ever buy a new product and always wait until someone else has taken the development pain. Even then there are no guarantees that a so called "proven" product will work when delivered to a new customer. It is no different to having work done on your house - you can opt to use an experienced builder with an excellent reputation but they cannot guarantee not to run into unexpected problems in your property. As the client you are unlikely to possess full knowledge of your house - its foundations, brickwork, pipes, wiring etc. Even if you employed expensive surveyors they won't find everything. Any prudent person ensures they have additional funds to cover variations to the agreed written scope and that there is a process in the contract for agreeing variations. I certainly did that when I had work done.

Clearly TfL took a risk in going with a new train design but I assume that the engineering resource that was on the tender evaluation team asked a full set of relevant questions of all bidders and especially challenged how the risks around new build would be controlled / mitigated. I assume Bombardier provided pertinent and evidenced responses. However that still does not mean that problems will not occur. Risk can always materialise. We also do not know if TfL / Arriva Rail London / Network Rail fulfilled all of their contractual obligations *to* Bombardier on time and in full. If they didn't then Bombardier is NOT wholly to blame for what has gone on and therefore any commercial dispute will have to reflect breaches by all parties. That's just how it is I'm afraid. What we also do not know is whether TfL have exercised any wider rights under the contract to find out why things have gone so wrong etc. I have a horrible suspicion that the whole GOBLIN electrification project, including the new trains, would probably be an exemplar of how not to do a project like this but I doubt we will ever see the full details of what actually transpired.

A reasoned and comprehensive reply; thank you. That pretty much gives me an answer - Bombardier have suffered enough reputational damage over the Aventras that they'll likely need to make it up when bidding for future work by demonstrating their delivery ability post-710s, or clients may decide they are too much of a risk; thus bringing the system back into balance.
And for them, having not made any money on the 710s, they'll want to shore up their internal processes, as if it happens many more times they'll go out of business - thus the incentive to do better is on them doubly.

87015 · 20 Nov 2018

Has the electrification of Barking Plat 1 been finished yet? Was still barred to electrics last week with no end date in the documentation.

matthewmacleod · 20 Nov 2018

plcd1 said:
I've read somewhere that the pantographs have been dropping for no apparent reason. Also that there have been unexpected brake applications during testing.

Super interesting, thanks! Does sound like it makes sense.

I'm a software engineer by trade (but in a rather different field), so it's always fascinating to see what problems arise in other sectors' software implementations. Sometimes I think that's there's just not enough cross-collaboration between different sectors that could help solve some of the problems we all face… food for thought.

slick · 20 Nov 2018

Just imagine when they try to couple the 1xx subclass :lol:

hwl · 21 Nov 2018

plcd1 said:
Several things to say here. We don't know that TfL "bought cheap". The overall package - trains and maintenance support - may well have been the most economically advantageous (to use the lingo) but it may only have been a few tens of thousands of pounds cheaper than the next bid. We simply don't know as those comparative details are never released. Bombardier are hardly unique in being late with a new train design. Siemens were late with the 700s, Hitachi have been late with the 385s and IEPs etc etc. I doubt the 710s will be the only really late train amongst the batch of suppliers sending trains to the UK. Will CAF's new trains for the North glide seamlessly into service? It'll be a miracle if they do..

After Bombardier lost the Thameslink contract they did some big thinking on EMU design and the result is the Aventra Mk2. Some of the thinking was around reducing maintenance requirements and hence cost another area was reducing component/item counts.

As an example:
Fit inside frame bogies that reduce the mass by about 2 tonnes per bogie (equivalent to the weight of an entire car on 12 car train), this weight reduction then reduces the amount of power required to meet an acceleration curve thus requiring fewer traction motors which saves more weight and reduces the need for a traction motors slightly again. Fewer traction motors = less traction electronics = more weight reduction. Choosing to use external traction motor blowers for TM cooling allowed bigger traction motors to be fitted in the inside frame bogies (than competitors also see BT's patent advantages for an advantage here), this then reduced the traction motor and traction electronics count again (with more feed back loops). External traction motor blowers enable TM cooling to be independent of motor speed and allow more cooling at lower speeds when it is most needed thus allowing regenerative braking down to lower speeds before the friction brakes cut / blend in, this results in lower friction brake use and less need to replace brake pads. Because of the patent situation and having external traction motor blowers Bombardier can have disc brakes (lower maintenance) on all axles including motored axles (Siemens have had to go for tread brakes on the Desiro City motored axles and Hitachi went for traditional outside frame bogies for the 385 motor bogies (2 - 2.5tonnes extra per bogie) so the Bombardier brake discs/pads do less work than their competitors and have longer interval between needing changing resulting in less time in depot thus reducing the requirement of depot capacity (See SWR, LNWR, Anglia orders as a key factor). Similarly fewer traction motors results in fewer gear boxes/ bearings so less time in depots over pits when they need work.

liam456 · 23 Nov 2018

hwl said:
After Bombardier lost the Thameslink contract they did some big thinking on EMU design and the result is the Aventra Mk2. Some of the thinking was around reducing maintenance requirements and hence cost another area was reducing component/item counts.

As an example:
Fit inside frame bogies that reduce the mass by about 2 tonnes per bogie (equivalent to the weight of an entire car on 12 car train), this weight reduction then reduces the amount of power required to meet an acceleration curve thus requiring fewer traction motors which saves more weight and reduces the need for a traction motors slightly again. Fewer traction motors = less traction electronics = more weight reduction. Choosing to use external traction motor blowers for TM cooling allowed bigger traction motors to be fitted in the inside frame bogies (than competitors also see BT's patent advantages for an advantage here), this then reduced the traction motor and traction electronics count again (with more feed back loops). External traction motor blowers enable TM cooling to be independent of motor speed and allow more cooling at lower speeds when it is most needed thus allowing regenerative braking down to lower speeds before the friction brakes cut / blend in, this results in lower friction brake use and less need to replace brake pads. Because of the patent situation and having external traction motor blowers Bombardier can have disc brakes (lower maintenance) on all axles including motored axles (Siemens have had to go for tread brakes on the Desiro City motored axles and Hitachi went for traditional outside frame bogies for the 385 motor bogies (2 - 2.5tonnes extra per bogie) so the Bombardier brake discs/pads do less work than their competitors and have longer interval between needing changing resulting in less time in depot thus reducing the requirement of depot capacity (See SWR, LNWR, Anglia orders as a key factor). Similarly fewer traction motors results in fewer gear boxes/ bearings so less time in depots over pits when they need work.

Really interesting insight into EMU design, thanks! Seems like Bombardier weren't resting on Electrostar laurels and tried to innovate, but their software is lacking. Perhaps outsourcing to third-world countries. (Non-MITRAC stuff, of course)

thecrofter · 25 Nov 2018

plcd1 said:
I've read somewhere that the pantographs have been dropping for no apparent reason. Also that there have been unexpected brake applications during testing. I'm no expert but I assume that the train detected particular "conditions" and the software then instructed the pantograph to drop or the brakes to apply. There could also be issues in the pantographs and braking systems. Whatever the source is then it all has to be worked through to make sure there are not erroneous readings, erroneous instructions and responses or not problematic components. Given the massive complexity it's not an easy process to find the root cause / symptoms and then define a solution then implement it and test it while not inadvertently causing another problem to manifest. That's the sense I'm getting from comments I've read. As ever happy to be corrected if I've just written a load of drivel.

One issue being worked on is the tolerance to variations in the overhead line supply voltage. The changeover from Anglia's supply (West Ham) to LNW's (Acton Lane) being a problem particularly at night when NLL is lightly loaded.

Old Hill Bank · 25 Nov 2018

thecrofter said:
One issue being worked on is the tolerance to variations in the overhead line supply voltage. The changeover from Anglia's supply (West Ham) to LNW's (Acton Lane) being a problem particularly at night when NLL is lightly loaded.

Really. Electric traction has been passing through neutral sections into different feeding areas since Adam was a lad.

43096 · 25 Nov 2018

Old Hill Bank said:
Really. Electric traction has been passing through neutral sections into different feeding areas since Adam was a lad.

And it’s not like Bombardier built and maintained trains don’t use the NLL on a regular basis, either!

Islineclear3_1 · 26 Nov 2018

Sorry if asked before but if 710s are going to be used on the Euston - Watford line (once enough are in service), what will happen to the 378's?

I read somewhere (speculation of course) that they "could" go to Southern for Coastway services to replace the 313's - however, how (un)likely is that?

samuelmorris · 26 Nov 2018

Not at all likely, the only reason 710s are being used from Euston is for additional capacity on the other routes 378s operate, i.e. the NLL/ELL

hwl · 26 Nov 2018

robert7111a said:
Sorry if asked before but if 710s are going to be used on the Euston - Watford line (once enough are in service), what will happen to the 378's?

I read somewhere (speculation of course) that they "could" go to Southern for Coastway services to replace the 313's - however, how (un)likely is that?

They aren't leaving LO and TfL haven't taken up enough of the the 710 options either (yet?).
The released 378s will go to increasing NLL and ELL (Crystal Palace branch) service frequencies (+2tph each)

swt_passenger · 26 Nov 2018

robert7111a said:
Sorry if asked before but if 710s are going to be used on the Euston - Watford line (once enough are in service), what will happen to the 378's?

I read somewhere (speculation of course) that they "could" go to Southern for Coastway services to replace the 313's - however, how (un)likely is that?

Post #758 is the most recent copy of the regular explanation of the use of the additional trains. As said already, all the existing trains are retained, just used in different sections of LO.

swt_passenger · 26 Nov 2018

hwl said:
They aren't leaving LO and TfL haven't taken up enough of the the 710 options either (yet?).
The released 378s will go to increasing NLL and ELL (Crystal Palace branch) service frequencies (+2tph each)

The current order does include a 9 train increase to 54, beyond the previous 45 train order, and that was an increase on the original 39 trains, but as you say everything is already accounted for.

Islineclear3_1 · 26 Nov 2018

swt_passenger said:
Post #758 is the most recent copy of the regular explanation of the use of the additional trains. As said already, all the existing trains are retained, just used in different sections of LO.

Thank you. This is kinda what I expected, seems pointless sending them elsewhere

swt_passenger · 26 Nov 2018

Thought I’d try and summarise the different stages of this 710 order in one place.

About 2012:
39 x 4 car trains consisting of

30 for West Anglia routes to replace existing stock.
1 for Romford-Upminster to replace existing stock.
8 for Gospel Oak to Barking to utilise new electrification.

About 2015:
45 x 4 car trains consisting of

30 for West Anglia as above
1 for Romford to Upminster as above
8 for Gospel Oak to Barking as above
6 additional for the Watford DC lines...
... which releases 6 existing 5 car 378 for NLL/WLL frequency enhancements.

About 2016:
54 trains in total (made up of 48 x 4 car and 6 x 5 car) consisting of

30 for West Anglia as above
0 for Romford to Upminster. Now to be a retained 315.
8 for Gospel Oak to Barking as above
2 additional for Gospel Oak to Barking Riverside extension
6 for The Watford DC lines as above
1 additional for Watford DC lines to allow 4tph.
1 previously Romford to Upminster now transferred to Watford DC lines to allow 4 tph.
6 additional 5 car trains for the NLL/WLL...
... which releases 6 existing 378s for ELL frequency improvements.

Note. The reason the latest 6 new 5 car units can’t go directly to the ELL is that trains with emergency access end doors need to be used in the ELL Thames Tunnel. It is easier to transfer existing than build a few special 710s.

Islineclear3_1 · 26 Nov 2018

Excellent summary - thank you

Class 710 LO

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member